vowelization, vocalization

[Jana337]

Is the average literate Hebrew-speaker able to transcribe a text from unvowelized to vowelized, including correct placement of the דגשים?

Even I, an "average literate Hebrew speaker", don't always know how to nikkudize words properly. That's one reason why I have a dictionary

Copied from here.

Now, is it the same in Arabic?
And is there an equally beautiful word for "to nikkudize"?
In other words, I know what each of the symbols used in transcription is called, but is there a collective noun?

Jana

 

[Josh_]

In my opinion it is easier to vowelize a text in Arabic than in Hebrew. This is because Hebrew has more than one vowel symbol representing the same sound. So you really do have to know the grammar well, or at least memorize which vowels go with each word. Arabic, on the other hand, has only three vowel symbols and they each have one sound. On the flip size, the Arabic alphabet is more difficult to learn because it employs a cursive writing system. That is, the letters connect to each other and in doing so they take different shapes. So, if you count each shape as a single unit, you have to memorize over 100 shapes. In the Hebrew alphabet the letters are separate so you only have to learn one form.

To answer your second question, I would just use the word vowelize in English, but if you wanted to anglicize the Arabic word maybe you could say harakatize from the Arabic word haraka which means vowel. The Arabic word for vowelize is yuHarraku.

 

[elroy]

In my opinion it is easier to vowelize a text in Arabic than in Hebrew. This is because Hebrew has more than one vowel symbol representing the same sound. So you really do have to know the grammar well, or at least memorize which vowels go with each word. Arabic, on the other hand, has only three vowel symbols and they each have one sound. On the flip size, the Arabic alphabet is more difficult to learn because it employs a cursive writing system. That is, the letters connect to each other and in doing so they take different shapes. So, if you count each shape as a single unit, you have to memorize over 100 shapes. In the Hebrew alphabet the letters are separate so you only have to learn one form.

To answer your second question, I would just use the word vowelize in English, but if you wanted to anglicize the Arabic word maybe you could say harakatize from the Arabic word haraka which means vowel. The Arabic word for vowelize is yuHarraku.

I agree with you; the "hard" part is knowing what the final vowels should be. Internal vowels come naturally if you know what the word is.

Hebrew is different because there are multiple symbols for the same sound.

One small correction: yuHarriku

 

[Josh_]

I keep going back to colloquial pronunciation when talking about fuSHa. it's a bad habit I have been trying to break.

Anyway, I thought about adding an addendum to my original post as I thought about desinential inflection after I posted. Pronunciation is easy, but knowing what case, and thus the final vowel to be used, is more difficult. Even an educated Arab might have to really consciously think about it in order to inflect properly. Hebrew is easier in this sense as there is no case system.

 

[cherine]

I don't know if it's common in all Arabic countries, but here we learned that putting the diacritical marks on the letters is called at-tashkeel التشكيل . diacritical marks themselves are called علامات التشكيل or الشَكْل
The Hebrew word that Jana mentioned "nikkudize" reminded me of a phase of evolution of the Arabic calligraphy, called at-tanqeet التنقيط when people started putting dots on the letters (b, t, th, f, q...). If you see old Arabic manuscripts you'll find that the letters didn't have dots.
As I don't know Hebrew, I can't compare the two concepts, but I thought maybe there's a similarity.

 

[Josh_]

Yeah, تشكيل and تحريك are essentially مترادفات as far as vowels are concerned. You might be able to say that the only difference is that تحريك translates as vowelization whereas تشكيل translates as providing (a letter, text, etc,) with a vowel mark. You could say that حركة translates as vowel whereas ( شكل(ـة or علامة التشكيل translates as vowel mark or the actual symbol representing a vowel. Obviously there is a very fine line here as to whether there is a difference or not. Others might say there is no difference at all. Represented here is just the ramblings of my mind. I am just fascinated by the nuances in languages in general, but especially Arabic.


To add to the mix, look up إعجام (the verb is أعجم، يعجم ) which translates as providing (a letter) with a diacritical mark. Incidentally, the verbal adjective of this verb, معجم , which translates as provided with a diacritical mark, is also the word for dictionary, in its nominal form.

 

[JLanguage]

I don't know if it's common in all Arabic countries, but here we learned that putting the diacritical marks on the letters is called at-tashkeel التشكيل . diacritical marks themselves are called علامات التشكيل or الشَكْل
The Hebrew word that Jana mentioned "nikkudize" reminded me of a phase of evolution of the Arabic calligraphy, called at-tanqeet التنقيط when people started putting dots on the letters (b, t, th, f, q...). If you see old Arabic manuscripts you'll find that the letters didn't have dots.
As I don't know Hebrew, I can't compare the two concepts, but I thought maybe there's a similarity.

In Hebrew the dots are called דגשים (Degeshim), and used to change the sound of בגדכפת(b,g,d,kh,f,t). In modern Hebrew a distinction is made only between ב,כ,פ. Yemenite Hebrew maintains the old distinctions. Ex. פּ vs. פ or p vs. v

 

[amikama]

In Hebrew the dots are called דגשים (Degeshim), and used to change the sound of בגדכפת(b,g,d,kh,f,t). In modern Hebrew a distinction is made only between ב,כ,פ. Yemenite Hebrew maintains the old distinctions. Ex. פּ vs. פ or p vs. v f

You are talking about דגש קל (dagesh kal). There is another dagesh called דגש חזק (dagesh Hazak) which may appear in most consonants. A consonant with dagesh Hazak is doubled (like the Arabic shadda, if I don't mistake): ניקּוד = nik-kud.


By the way, I wonder if the dots that are part of the letters themselves (not the vowels) have a collective name? I mean the dots of letters such as ج خ ق ش etc.

 

[NICE-LADY]

You are talking about דגש קל (dagesh kal). There is another dagesh called דגש חזק (dagesh Hazak) which may appear in most consonants. A consonant with dagesh Hazak is doubled (like the Arabic shadda, if I don't mistake): ניקּוד = nik-kud.


By the way, I wonder if the dots that are part of the letters themselves (not the vowels) have a collective name? I mean the dots of letters such as ج خ ق ش etc.

As far as I know, such letters do not have a collective name, as in Hebrew. The dots system in Arabic is so different from the nikud system in Hebrew. I mean, a word like Perah' (flower) would not have a different meaning if it was written as a Ferah', the reader will just know to read it, and the meaning will not change. However, if you omit a dot from any of the letters, the meaning will certainly change. So, a word like جارة and حارة have very different meanings. I hope you see my point.

 

[elroy]

You are talking about דגש קל (dagesh kal). There is another dagesh called דגש חזק (dagesh Hazak) which may appear in most consonants. A consonant with dagesh Hazak is doubled (like the Arabic shadda, if I don't mistake): ניקּוד = nik-kud.


By the way, I wonder if the dots that are part of the letters themselves (not the vowels) have a collective name? I mean the dots of letters such as ج خ ق ش etc.

I do not know of a separate name for these dots; we simply call them نقط (dots).

By the way, you are right about the shadda.